https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=10408009&GUID=959CCD88-3C60-453C-820E-8212991AA097
This is more of a post about constitutional issues. I don't care how you might feel about firearms or the 2nd Amendment.
The city of San Jose, California has given a demonstration on how to violate the the 1st Amendment, the 5th Amendment, and Article I, Section 9... all in one regulation.
If you want to read the actual regulation, you'll have to skip over quite a bit of "whereas" clauses and pseudo-justifications. The actual regulation begins on page 7.
If you care about the rule of law, if you were outraged by Donald's Trump's wholesale ignorance of the Constitution.... then you should oppose this as well. If Mr. Trump (and most of the rest of the GOP these days) earns your ire, and this doesn't, then you're going to have to concede that your objections to the GOP (and their continued ignorance of the Constitution and rule of law) were never based in principles, and were simply partisan.
For what it's worth, it's not worth getting too worked up about this San Jose regulation. Even in the 9th Circuit, it will never survive first contact with the appellate court system.
Being forced to contribute to a non-profit group that is likely to use that money to promote messages you disagree with is fundamentally a violation of the 1st Amendment. (And has been found so by the courts repeatedly).
Article I, Section 9(3) prohibits ex-post facto laws. You can't impose a new "after-the-fact" cost on people who already own firearms. (Though you could probably get away with imposing a tax on new purchases)
It is almost certainly Constitutional to use tax-monies to do so, with some restrictions around political neutrality.
It is NOT (for instance) Constitutional to force people to give money to a union which will then use that money to advocate for positions that the person disagrees with.
It would be unconstitutional to force non-gun-owners to give money to the NRA. Likewise in reverse.
If San Jose wishes to give tax dollars to an anti-gun group, the Constitution allows it.
But they can't force a specific subset of politically unpopular people to give directly to a group for messages they disagree with, nor than the government simply serve as a middle man, collecting the fees from the singled-out citizens and handing those fees to the organization in question.
The city can probably impose the insurance requirement on new guns purchased. Both the 5th Amendment and Article I prohibit the city from imposing those fees on folks who already own guns.
Were this an insurance requirement imposed on, say, vaccinated folks, you would be able to see plainly and clearly that it's unconstitutional.
I'm certain there are subtleties involved in what constitutes "compelled speech".
But forcing citizens to give money to a non-profit that doesn't even exist yet (and will no doubt be founded by political cronies) with absolutely no restrictions or control over what that money can be spent on.... will inevitably end up amounting to compelled speech.